1. University of Minnesota Content is not king Andrew Odlyzko Digital Technology Center University of Minnesota http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko

2. University of Minnesota Main points:  Long historical tradition of overemphasis on content  Connectivity has traditionally been valued much more than content  Social connectivity very important but neglected Note: Content (defined as material prepared by professionals for wide distributions) is big and important, it is just not as big or as important as connectivity.

3. University of Minnesota Big challenges, lack of solutions:

4. University of Minnesota Common wisdom vs. reality:

5. University of Minnesota New threat or ancient underappreciated truth?

6. University of Minnesota Rejection of WAP (content) and eager acceptance of SMS (connectivity) should not have been a surprise: it fits the dominant historical pattern

7. University of Minnesota What would the Internet be without “content?'' It would be a valueless collection of silent machines with gray screens. It would be the electronic equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements, nice colors, no life. It would be nothing. E. Bronfman, Jr., May 2000 Example of common but ludicrous overvaluation of content

8. University of Minnesota Value of bits: Cable TV$0.0001 Wired Phone 0.0800 Mobile Phone 3.0000 SMS3000.0000 Price/MB

9. University of Minnesota Selected sectors of U.S. economy telephone$199.3$256.18.7% U.S. Postal Service49.658.35.5 advertising151.7187.57.3 motion pictures53.563.05.6 movie theaters6.27.67.0 video tape rentals7.07.20.9 broadcast industries television broadcasting31.136.95.9 radio broadcasting10.513.58.7 newspapers47.255.35.4 magazines17.419.94.6 consumer spending on “content”113.9133.55.4 19941997annual Industryrevenuesrevenuesgrowth (billions)(billions)rate

10. University of Minnesota Revenues of U.S. cable TV and cell phone industries cable TVcellular year(millions)(millions) 1987$11,563$942 199221,0796,688 199730,78425,575 2000≈50,000 Radio moved from point-to-point connectivity to content broadcasting, but now is moving back

11. University of Minnesota Typical usage pattern of communication services:  first govenment  then business  then social

12. University of Minnesota Dominant types of communication: business and social, not content, in the past as well as today Thirty years ago you left the city of Assur. You have never made a deposit since, and we have not recovered one shekel of silver from you, but we have never made you feel bad about this. Our tablets have been going to you with caravan after caravan, but no report from you has ever come here. circa 2000 B.C. A fine thing you did! You didn't take me with you to the city! If you don't want to take me with you to Alexandria, I won't write you a letter, I won't talk to you, I won't say Hello to you even.... A fine thing you did, all right. Big gifts you sent me - chicken feed! They played a trick on me there, the 12th, the day you sailed. Send for me, I beg you. If you don't, I won't eat, I won't drink. There! circa 200 A.D.

13. University of Minnesota For the first 30 years of the telephone, promoters struggled to identify the killer application that would promote its wide adoption by home owners and businesses. At first the telephone was promoted as a replacement for the telegraph, allowing businesses to send messages more easily and without an operator. Telephone promoters in the early years touted the telephone as new service to broadcast news, concerts, church services, weather reports, etc. Industry journals publicized inventive uses of the telephone such as sales by telephone, consulting with doctors, ordering groceries over the telephone, listening to school lectures and even long distance Christian Science healing! The concept that someone would buy the telephone to chat was simply inconceivable at that time. C. Fischer, America Calling Historically common pattern: government and business decision-makers emphasize content, users prefer connectivity

14. University of Minnesota The popularity of email was not foreseen by the ARPANET's planners. Roberts had not included electronic mail in the original blueprint for the network. In fact, in 1967 he had called the ability to send messages between users “not an important motivation for a network of scientific computers”.... Why then was the popularity of email such a surprise? One answer is that it represented a radical shift in the ARPANET's identity and purpose. The rationale for building the network had focused on providing access to computers rather than to people. J. Abbate, Inventing the Internet The Internet succeeded by accident. Email, its “killer app,” was not among the original design criteria:

15. University of Minnesota Example of attitude that the phone industry had to overcome before it could grow as large as it did: The unlimited use of the telephone leads to a vast amount of unnecessary occupation of the wires, and to much borrowing of telephones by parties who are not subscribers. Thus the telephone system is so encumbered with calls which are unnecessary, and largely illegitimate, that the service is greatly impaired, and subscribers, to whom prompt connection is essential, become dissatisfied. Bell company announcement, 1880s

16. University of Minnesota Many disappointing “content” ventures:  Phone company information services  Videotext experiments (including AT&T venture with Knight Ridder)  Minitel  AOL (started out as game network), Prodigy, … Inside stories of the Knight Ridder and Prodigy cases: demand for connectivity in unexpected settings

17. University of Minnesota Quantitative measures:  Sarnoff’s Law: Value of content distribution network grows like n  Metcalfe’s Law: Value of connectivity network grows like n 2  Odlyzko & Tilly: Metcalfe’s Law wrong, value of general connectivity network grows like n*log(n) n*log(n) grows faster than n, but difference is sufficiently slow to enable the “content is king” dogma to persist n = number of participants

18. University of Minnesota Quantitative measures (cont’d):  Odlyzko-Tilly n*log(n) “law”  general observations supporting the “content is not king” thesis  Chris Anderson’s “long tails” thesis all consistent with, and supported by, Zipf’s Law (1/n valuation of n-th most valuable item)

19. University of Minnesota Conclusions:  Content is valuable  Content not as valuable as connectivity  Social connectivity should be promoted

20. University of Minnesota Further data, discussions, and speculations in papers and presentation decks at: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko